This paper examines the landmark 1973–1983 civil rights case brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against General Motors, the world's largest automaker at the time. It details the $42 million settlement — the largest civil rights reparations payment in U.S. history up to that point — including its monetary provisions for scholarships, training programs, and minority business grants. The paper profiles key stakeholders such as Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and the NAACP, and analyzes GM's corporate culture of racial tension. It concludes with a discussion of ongoing discrimination allegations at GM facilities and broader questions about the future direction of civil rights legislation and affirmative action policy.
The paper demonstrates effective use of stakeholder analysis — identifying not just the parties to a legal settlement but their motivations, institutional roles, and historical significance. By profiling Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, GM management, and the EEOC, the paper shows how complex civil rights outcomes depend on the actions of multiple actors across time.
The paper opens with historical background on civil rights and the EEOC's enforcement strategy, then presents the specific facts of the GM settlement and its financial terms. A middle section traces the legal and organizational precedents set by Marshall and Thomas. The paper then returns to GM's corporate culture to show that the settlement did not fully resolve discrimination within the company. It closes with a critical evaluation of affirmative action policy and its contemporary relevance, raising the risk of reverse discrimination.
The civil rights movement in the United States began slowly. Changing centuries of discriminatory practices across an entire country was not a task without opposition, or without ignorance on the part of the average citizen. However, when that ignorance was institutionalized within businesses, the wheels of justice needed a significant push in order to begin affording Black Americans access to the same opportunities that white Americans enjoyed. Toward this end, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actively sought out target cases that would have the largest impact on moving the civil rights agenda forward.
In 1973, a suit was filed against the world's largest automaker, General Motors. The EEOC alleged that the corporation actively discriminated against Black, Hispanic, and women workers. At the time of the suit's filing, only 6.4% of the company's journeymen (skilled labor) positions were filled by minority workers. Under the terms of the eventual agreement, the company would seek to raise that figure to 10%. Regarding women, they made up 20% of the hourly workforce. Under the agreement, new hiring programs would target a quota of 28% women.
This settlement was reached outside of a protracted legal battle in the courts. In light of the cultural direction of the decade and the influence the EEOC was having in securing a more balanced workplace for minorities, General Motors chose to settle the suit. By following a proactive policy rather than an adversarial one, both the company and the EEOC were able to complete negotiations while remaining in a positive light in the court of public opinion.
The negotiations produced a settlement that included significantly more benefits for women and minorities than mere promises of changed future hiring practices. GM agreed to pay over $42 million in set-aside grants, educational funding, and employee training programs in order to facilitate greater equality within the company and for the families of company employees. The monetary award included the following provisions:
$15 million in endowments and scholarships to colleges and technical schools, primarily to assist GM employees and their family members. Members of the affected classes — women, Black Americans, and Hispanics — would receive preferential distribution of these funds.
$8.9 million was set aside for training programs for over 250 women and minority group members. The target of this program was to increase white-collar job placement of minorities to 15% and women to 25%.
$1 million was set aside for back pay and to resolve outstanding individual complaints that had been filed against the company prior to the settlement.
College endowment funds were also part of the settlement. General Motors agreed to support 28 different educational institutions with endowments of $250,000 each, to be paid over five years. An additional $1 million would be distributed to a number of other universities, and another $1 million would be given to two-year technical and vocational schools selected with the help of federal supervision.
$1.25 million would be given in grants to support minority business enterprises. $2.2 million would be spent to send existing female, Black, and Hispanic executives to universities where they could develop additional management skills. $1 million would be spent on training and workshops for clerical employees to prepare them for better-paying positions. Another $1 million would be spent training women for foremen positions and supervisory roles over manufacturing operations. $2 million would be directed toward training workers in technical skills and craftsmanship, and $1 million toward educational initiatives in mathematics so that employees could become eligible for apprenticeship programs. Finally, the company committed to spending $1.2 million to recruit women, Hispanic, and Black Americans into the skilled trades.
According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University, a civil right is "an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a person's race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, and national origin." (Legal Information Institute, online)
GM's generous response to the case was a direct confirmation of President Lyndon Johnson's vision for the Civil Rights legislation signed into law in 1964. The president did not believe that civil rights legislation alone would correct decades of discriminatory practices. In a speech to the graduating class at Howard University, President Johnson described the concept underlying affirmative action:
"You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: 'Now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.' You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, 'you are free to compete with all the others,' and still justly believe you have been completely fair… This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity — not just legal equity but human ability — not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result." (infoplease.com, online)
Commenting on the terms of the GM agreement, UAW spokesman Peter Laarman echoed President Johnson's sentiments. The company did not view the settlement as reparations for deliberately discriminatory actions. Although terms of the agreement addressed over 700 standing civil rights infractions, Laarman called the settlement "more prospective than retrospective" (NY Times, 1983). The company looked ahead to a future in which minority and women employees would be treated more fairly and empowered to take advantage of the same opportunities available to other workers.
A monumental legal milestone such as the GM settlement has many key stakeholders involved in the process. The settlement was pursued over more than ten years. In order to fully understand the impact of the event, the key stakeholders and their objectives must also be understood.
Because the injustices of discrimination did not end with the passage of laws, organizations such as the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) and the EEOC were created. The NAACP was one of the most significant of these organizations and was led by chief litigator Thurgood Marshall. During his years with the NAACP, Marshall developed a unique strategy to combat racial segregation throughout the United States. Without Marshall breaking new legal ground, the civil rights movement would not have gathered the power and unified force it eventually directed toward corporations such as General Motors. Marshall believed that the only way for change to occur was by altering the laws, and he was the first civil rights leader willing to use the law as a primary instrument of change.
The early NAACP legal work followed a pattern of organized litigation designed to achieve specific social ends. Marshall pushed ahead with court challenges to segregated university education. He complained to Walter White, executive secretary of the NAACP, that "we have the lawyers ready but do not have the cases." So Marshall's forces repeatedly went out looking for "a good place to bring a lawsuit," to "locate a plaintiff," and to "develop a case." (Tushnet, 1994) In essence, Marshall bypassed a legislature that was unwilling to act on civil rights at the time. Marshall and the NAACP set the precedent of judicial lawmaking. Rather than wait for cases to come to him, he pursued court actions "where the apple is ripe." (Tushnet, 1994)
You’re 46% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.